When the father takes the kids to the cabin, and aiming a gun at the daughter? He said "mama doesnt feel well". What did he mean? What happened to the mother? Did he kill her?
A car sits in front of a house where a news report is talking about the financial meltdown of 2008. An item comes up about a shooting at the investment firm of Capt Villiers Holdings where one partner is reported dead at the site, and another is in critical condition while a third, Jeffrey Desange, is reported missing. A lone gunshot is heard as the scene shifts to a bedroom inside the house where a three year-old girl is seen standing by a crib. She goes toward the door carrying a stuffed animal as her father busts in looking disheveled, blood on his collar. Her name is Victoria and Jeffrey Desange is her father. He goes toward the crib and reaches in taking Victoria’s little sister, Lilly, into his arms. Victoria asks if her mother will be taking her to school that morning. Jeffrey says her mother is sick and can’t do it. Jeffrey reaches for Victoria’s glasses and instructs her to put them on, taking her hand throwing the stuffed animal down on the floor as he walks out of the room carrying Lilly. They go downstairs where the family Dachshund Handsome watches as Jeffrey takes the girls out of the house, leaving the door open. On an icy road, Jeffrey is behind the wheel of his car speeding while Victoria and Lilly are in the backseat, Victoria concerned for her father. Holding onto LIlly, Victoria obsrves Jeffrey is driving too fast to which Jeffrey smiles somewhat darkly and puts his foot on the gas increasing his speed. Jeffrey yells at Victoria to be quiet as he looses control of the car, putting into a spin and running it off the road and down a steep decline. Back at the house police and emergency workers are outside when a car pulls up and a lone figure gets out. He breaches the yellow crime scene tape encountering a police officer who instructs him to get back. The man introduces himself as Lucas Desange and the house is his brothers. The cop tells Lucas to stay put but Lucas is concerned about Victoria and Lilly and attempts to get past the officer who tells hiim to stay put. Lucas looks toward the house knowing something is wrong.
The car radio reports both of Jeffrey’s victims are dead and Jeffrey has absconded with his daughters after murdering their mother. Jeffrey abandons the car that is wedged against a tree. Jeffrey carries Lilly and holds Victoria’s hand as they take off walking throug a forest where snow continues to fall. Jeffrey doesn’t answer Victoria when she asks if they are at their destination. They continue through the trees as Victoria tells her father her glasses are broken. Jeffrey doesn’t hear as they come upon a house sitting alone. On a placque on the house is the word “Helvicia.” Jeffrey approaches still carrying Lilly and tentatively opens the door. He glances in then turns back to instruct Victoria to come to him even though she tells him she saw someone inside. Reluctantly Victoria goes to her father who takes her hand and enters the house. Once inside Jeffrey sits the girls down on a couch as he breaks up some old furniture to make a fire to warm the girls. Jeffrey begins taking stock of what the house has in it when he notices a rat sitting on the open oven door. Dispondent Jeffrey tries to find a quiet place away from the girls. Victoria gets up to go to the window to look outside where she sees something moving. Jeffrey collapses against the wall, sliding down sobbing. He holds the gun he used earlier to kill his co-workers and his wife, placing it up to his head as Victoria tells him about a woman outside, and who is not touching the ground. Jeffrey comes up behind Victoria carrying the gun as he kneels down. Victoria asks why Jeffrey is crying to which Jeffrey tries to explain about how moms and dads sometimes have a hard time making things work. He touches Victoria’s face then removes her glasses making her vision blurry. Jeffrey tells Victoria he loves her as he glances down at the gun, a tear rolling from his eye, down his nose to fall on the barrel. Victoria asks what he’s holding and trying to distract her, he tells Victoria to look outside. Sobbing harder Jeffrey raises the gun up to the back of Victoria’s head. Then suddenly Jeffrey is snatched up as Victoria watches, her vision blurred and not sure what is happening to Jeffrey. Whatever snatched up Jeffrey takes him ouside, then later as night has fallen and Victoria has taken Lilly to sit in front of the fire, a cherry is rolled toward her. Victoria picks it up and looks toward where she hears a groan come from a darkened part of the house. A figure is moving in the darkness as the title comes up.
"Sometimes my ruminations are too confusing for someone not inside my head." -Anon
Sorry, didn't mean to forget that but then I think anyone who watches this movie would have to have seen that. By the way, I just rewatched it this morning. I love this film as well as Nikolaj, Isabelle and Megan.
"Sometimes my ruminations are too confusing for someone not inside my head." -Anon
Don't be so sure. Look at how many complain about the ending, moaning about what Annabel and Lucas will tell the cops!
I'm really surprised at how much people really think this is supposed to be like "Captain Phillips" or something. The film is a fairy tale, or a parable at most. But I have that scene for them, if I may:
Lucas and Annabel take Victoria back to the house. They call the police and tell them Dreyfuss and Podolski ran off with the girls, but Victoria wrested away from Dreyfus and made it back to the house. It was established through his notes that Dreyfus had an unhealthy attachment to the girls, therefore it could easily be said that Podolski with all her money bribed Dreyfuss into helping her kidnap the girls. Both their corpses would be found up at Helvecia at Clifton Forge, therefore, cause of death could be bear mauling, however, Lilly would never be found. The only ones knowing what truly happened are Lucas, Annabel and Victoria. There, crisis averted.
The little girls in this are amazing! They do such a fine job. Jessica was the big name, but the girls steal it.
Isabelle and Megan as well as little Morgan who played the young Victoria were all amazing. As for who was the bigger star was at the time the film was being filmed, I'd have to say it was Nikolaj Coster-Waldau. My bet is "Mama" wouldn't have been released had it not been for "Zero Dark Thirty" and Chastain's Oscar/Golden Globe nominations, though at the time the film came out I'd have to say that Nikolaj Coster-Waldau was bigger due to his mass exposure as Jaime Lannister on "Game of Thrones." I guess for me I just love Nikolaj more than I do Chastain. I'm not overly a big fan of hers. Sorry.
"Sometimes my ruminations are too confusing for someone not inside my head." -Anon reply share
prometheus1816 writes: "The film is a fairy tale..."
Yes, it certainly is.
"My bet is 'Mama' wouldn't have been released had it not been for 'Zero Dark Thirty'..."
I think Del Toro had a lot to do with this film being made, but Jessica's success certainly helped give it a push into theatres. Del Toro seems to have been a big fan of the original short.
"Maybe it's another dimension. Or, you know, just really deep." --Needy
I think Del Toro had a lot to do with this film being made, but Jessica's success certainly helped give it a push into theatres. Del Toro seems to have been a big fan of the original short.
Even Del Toro wouldn't have been able to get it released if not for Chastain's rising star. I still contend the bigger star at the time was Nikolaj Coster-Waldau since he was filming season three of "Game of Thrones" while making "Mama."
"Sometimes my ruminations are too confusing for someone not inside my head." -Anon reply share
"Even Del Toro wouldn't have been able to get it released..."
Well, he was able to line up the financing before Jessica's star rose high... (Likely a year or two before filming.)
With the film made, it was going to be released, at least in some form. And despite Jessica, the film's release time is usually considered a "dumping ground" for films that are considered "second rate." However, the film did really well at the box office and with many critics. Goes to show you, that Hollywood got it wrong. Great Film!
"Maybe it's another dimension. Or, you know, just really deep." --Needy
"Jessica was the big name"? Never heard of her. She was passable but the real big name was Nikolaj Coster-Waldau from Game of Thrones that everybody except you have seen.
You're more than welcome. I love this film and have seen it more than a dozen times.
As for Jeffrey's corpse, no it was never found in regards to the theatrical film. If you watch the original trailer though, there is a scene where Lucas after he's left the hospital and gone back to Clifton Forge, he is directed to a place where he does find Jeff's bones here:
This is my only gripe with the film is in how they treated Lucas' character and Nikolaj Coster-Waldau in general. Some say Jessica Chastain was the star of the film, however, she only became a star after the film was completed. The bigger star at the time was Coster-Waldau who was playing the part of the Kingslayer Jaime Lannister on "Game of Thrones." In fact at the time Coster-Waldau was going back and forth between Canada and Ireland filming both the film and the show at the same time. I don't know whether that had anything to do with how little Nikolaj was in the film, but they had this footage and it should have been in the film. The theatrical film only shows Lucas wandering around in the woods with no real purpose after the part in the hospital when he has the seizure and sees his brother in the vision under Wilson's Bridge. So for that I give the film a tentative 9.5.
"Sometimes my ruminations are too confusing for someone not inside my head." -Anon
prometheus1816 writes: "The theatrical film only shows Lucas wandering around in the woods with no real purpose..."
He was guided by Fate. (That's also why he meets Annabel.)
There is a shot in the beginning of the tunnel (symbolically a conduit between worlds) hanging on his board, so there was a pre-connection to the spot. (The train that runs above the tunnel is also a symbol of death or fate as well.)
Fate seems to play a big part in this film: the girls are found after Annabel gets the negative on her pregnancy test. This is surely Fate or synchronicity....
"Maybe it's another dimension. Or, you know, just really deep." --Needy
He was guided by Fate. (That's also why he meets Annabel.)
He meets Annabel because he got a phone message that she was coming. She probably knows which road to take -- we see her reading a map while she drives -- but she has no idea where to stop, so he goes out to the road to flag her down.
There is a shot in the beginning of the tunnel (symbolically a conduit between worlds) hanging on his board, so there was a pre-connection to the spot. (The train that runs above the tunnel is also a symbol of death or fate as well.)
The significance of the viaduct is that Lucas would have no way of knowing where to go to look for his brother if he hadn't recognized it from the photo. The train is there in case anyone wonders why there is a viaduct out in the middle of nowhere.
Fate seems to play a big part in this film: the girls are found after Annabel gets the negative on her pregnancy test. This is surely Fate or synchronicity....
No, it's just Character Development 101. The first thing we're told about Annabel is that she doesn't want kids. Otherwise, we would have no idea why she acts like she does.
kincaid-5 writes: "...he goes out to the road to flag her down."
But, you forget the significance of his dream or vision. Lucas is directed by a higher power to the spot.
"The significance of the viaduct..."
Is allegorical -- note also a cross (of the telephone/telegraph pole), one of several in the film. A repetition of an object often indicates that it serves a symbolic purpose.
"...it's just Character Development 101."
But it is also figurative. In life there are coincidences, in art there are not. Film is art. Annabel was fated to be a mother.
I see you didn't do your homework. Despite the references I gave you, you insist that fairy tales have no deeper meaning...
Well, as I said before, you have the right to be pigheaded, and I have the right to be astute!
"Maybe it's another dimension. Or, you know, just really deep." --Needy
It's more than Jung, as I said in the other thread, Grimm also found vestiges of old religious beliefs in folk tales. In fact many scholars do...
There are numerous crosses in the film, that is a fact. As I said before, when something is repeated in a story, that is often a clue that it has symbolic meaning. That is a fact. I learned this in my first year in college, in a simple survey course.
Now the meaning of symbols is determined by tradition, context, and association.
Traditionally, in our culture, the cross or X is associated with Christ; but that association doesn't seem to fit the film. Otherwise, the cross is associated with ancient mother goddesses -- that certainly seems to fit, as the film is about mothers.
And by the way, the filmmakers dedicated this film to their mother. I don't think they would have done this if Mama was intended to be merely a monster. Jung doesn't have to be taken seriously at all psychologically -- this film is not a psychology course -- it is art. The symbolism points to divine presence, this is confirmed by the pieta composition with Annabel and Lilly. Mama is the god that Lilly is reunited with in the end. That is the allegorical -- not psychological -- meaning of the film.
Now if you wish, we can discuss the symbolism in the film, but I will not continue to entertain the idea that patently obvious symbolism has no meaning: such a proposition is absurd, and would be even to Jung.
"Maybe it's another dimension. Or, you know, just really deep." --Needy
Why do people make films? It's not so that know-it-alls can show off their brilliance at playing "Spot the Symbol." It's so that people will pay to see them, or at least watch commercials. To do that, they have to give the audience a satisfying experience; people go to comedies to laugh, to love stories to cry, to action films to get excited, and to horror films to be scared. Except with a few films, they don't go to solve a puzzle, figuring out how everything stands for something else.
You say that film-making is an art. It is, but what kind? It's drama. Drama isn't about loading up on symbols but about showing people interacting and confronting situations. This one is about how Edith was warped by her love and loss, how Annabel found maternal instincts inside herself, how Victoria chose to remain a human, and how Lilly couldn't. Everything put in front of us -- color palettes, musical scores, establishing shots -- is subordinated to telling that story.
The problem with your analysis is that you're slighting the human drama in pursuit of all sorts of esoteric meanings -- and not terribly coherent ones at that. (The train as a symbol of death????) And your use of words like "fact," "absurd," and "risible" (!) doesn't change that. How did the film-makers hope to sell tickets by incorporating all sorts of hidden meanings that someone has to have read a bunch of works of theory to see? They didn't. They were telling a story about two mothers, and I think they did a pretty good job. Why isn't that enough?
I realize I am reading/responding quite a while after this exchange, but I want to say: I truly appreciate your contribution to these discussions. Identifying and understanding the symbolism woven into a story is what takes the experience of imbibing from tasty to delicious! There are good reasons why the word "rumination" is seen fit for use regarding both eating and thinking. To heedlessly inhale fine cuisine is to miss out on all the nuances of flavors and textures. To the wet blankets at the party, I say: Chew your food!